Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: control device in claims 1 and 14 understood to be a controller.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
“Rectification column arrangement” and First head gas condensation arrangement are not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as sufficient structure is provided in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “the liquid level on the evaporation side of the head gas condensation arrangement” which is considered indefinite and lacks antecedent basis in the claims. A forced flow condenser does not have a liquid level by its nature and as described in applicant’s specification (paragraph 14 of the instant specification) and as such there is no evaporation side which has a liquid level; however, applicant teaches a configuration in which the forced flow evaporator can be located within a phase separator which would have a liquid level. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that a liquid level in a phase separator that the forced flow evaporator is located within is regulated. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the stream or conduit that transfers the excess liquid as part of the two-phase fluid from the evaporator to the low-pressure column does so without the liquid being passed into a condenser evaporator during the transfer.
Claim 2 recites “the head gas condensation arrangement “ twice which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be the first head gas condensation arrangement.
Claim 3 recites “the first excess liquid or a part thereof” which is considered to lack antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination this limitation is understood that the first excess liquid part is the liquid portion of the partially evaporated oxygen rich liquid.
Claim 3 recites “without returning the first excess liquid or a part thereof to the one or more condenser evaporators” which is considered indefinite. The scope of not returning is unclear, as the system is a system where fluids mix and separate and some fluids may cycle back to earlier portions of the system such as liquid from the evaporated stream which has entered into the low pressure column can end up back in the argon column and ultimately into the condenser arrangement on the other side and as such it is unclear what the scope and limitation of this claim is. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that
Claim 4 recites ”the first two-phase fluid” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to refer to the partially evaporated fluid from the head gas condensation arrangement.
Claim 5 has recites “(normal operation)” and “(underload case)” which are both considered indefinite. The use of the parentheses as well as the terms used make it unclear if these limitations are further limiting on the two modes or are only terms use to refer to the two modes. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are not considered further limiting on the claims.
Claim 6 recite “preferably” which is considered indefinite as it unclear if this is a require limitation in the claim or only a desired configuration. For the purpose of examination, the limitations after preferably are not considered limiting on the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the pure argon column” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, there is a pure argon column.
Claim 1 requires the first liquid pressure flow be expanded to a low pressure and then that used at least in part as the first cooling fluid; however claim 7 requires that first a different fluid is expanded and then the fluid derived form this fluid is used as the first cooling liquid; as such it is unclear if this means that the second excess liquid is replacing the first low-pressure liquid or is in addition to or the second excess liquid is expanded which renders claim 7 indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the second excess liquid is considered to be expanded again to form the first liquid low-pressure flow.
Claim 9 recites “the liquid level in the evaporation chamber” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. No previous liquid level or evaporation chamber have been claimed prior. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered that the second head gas condenser arrangement has an evaporation chamber which has a liquid level.
Claim 10 recites “the first excess liquid or part thereof” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, the first excess liquid is understood to be part of the partially evaporated first low-pressure liquid.
Claim 11 recites “the first two-phase flow” which lacks antecedence basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this stream is understood to be the first low-pressure liquid after partial evaporation.
Claim 11 recites “the head gas condensation arrangement” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be the first head gas condensation arrangement.
Claim 11 recites “the first excess liquid” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, the first excess liquid is understood to be part of the partially evaporated first low-pressure liquid.
Claim 13 recites “the head gas condensation arrangement” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be the first head gas condensation arrangement.
Claim 13 recites “the first excess liquid or part thereof” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, the first excess liquid is understood to be part of the partially evaporated first low-pressure liquid.
Claim 13 recites “a heat exchanger block” which is unclear how relates to the forced flow evaporator of claim 1 and “the phase separator” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the forced flow evaporator is located inside a phase separator.
Claim 14 recites “the raw argon column”, line 7 which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that there is a raw gas argon column.
Claim 14 recites “this head gas” in line 8 which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that there is head gas configured to be condensed in the first head gas condensation arrangement.
Claim 14, line 14 recites “the gas line” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Further it is unclear how the gas line relates to the rest of the claim limitations. For the purpose of examination there is a gas line which is used for feeding the first evaporation gas to the low-pressure column.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathbone (US Patent No. 4783208), hereinafter referred to as Rathbone and further in view of Nakazato et al. (JPS5546362), hereinafter referred to as Nakazato and Goloubev (US PG Pub 20160003531), hereinafter referred to as Goloubev and Handley et al. (US PG Pub 20160003539), hereinafter referred to as Handley.
With respect to claim 1, Rathbone teaches (Figure 1) a method for the cryogenic separation of air, in which an air separation plant (Figure 1)) having a rectification column arrangement which has a pressure column (high pressure column 4, Column 4, line 44), a low-pressure column (lower pressure column 6, Column 4, line 43-44), and a raw argon column (argon column 16 which produce crude argon, Column 4, lines 63-64) is used, wherein:
with direct or indirect use of at least part of an oxygen-enriched liquid from the pressure column, a first liquid pressure flow is formed (stream 12 from 4 fed into 18, Column 4, lines 58-63), the raw argon column is operated using a first head gas condensation arrangement in which head gas of the raw argon column is subjected to condensation provided using a first cooling fluid (condenser 18 is used to provide condensation to the overhead of the argon column using the fluid from 12, Column 4, lines 62-66),
and a first fluid is formed during heating of the first cooling liquid is fed into the low pressure column via a gas line (the fluid from 18 is fed into 6 via a line, Column 4, lines 66-68),
that the gas line contains a first throttle valve (expansion valve 20, Column 4, line 67).
Rathbone does not teach that the first liquid pressure flow is expanded to produce a low-pressure liquid which is used as the first cooling fluid, the first throttle valve is adjusted such that freezing of argon in the first head gas condensation arrangement is avoided, and in the process, a pressure of at least 50 mbar is generated at least temporarily across the throttle valve.
Nakazato teaches that flow rate and pressure control valves (10, 11) upstream and downstream of a condenser of an argon column between an intermediate pressure column (2) and a lower pressure column (1) where the valves are adjusted to maintain the temperature difference to a desired level to prevent argon from solidifying which is a concern and the fluid is depressurized across the valves (pages 7-8).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have expanded the first liquid pressure flow in Rathbone upstream of the condenser (18) in a valve based on the teaching of Nakazato as part of pressure and flow control of the stream ensure that the proper temperature difference is maintained in the condenser to prevent solidification. Further, the specific pressure the stream is expanded to is a result effective variable based on the conditions needed to provide the desired heat exchange based on the teaching of Nakazato. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Rathbone as modified to have had the pressure within the claimed range, as it only involves adjusting a dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when adjusting the pressure across the valve (additional throttle valve) for the fluid to have dropped to a low pressure and thus be a low pressure liquid as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Further it would have been obvious to have adjusted the valve (expansion valve 20) of Rathbone as modified to have adjusted the flow rate and pressure through the valve of Rathbone based on the teaching of Nakazato in order to maintain a specific temperature difference in the condenser in order to prevent solidification of the argon in the condenser bed which is a concern (page 8 of Nakazato). Further, the specific pressure the stream is expanded to and thus the pressure drop is a result effective variable based on the conditions needed to provide the desired heat exchange based on the teaching of Nakazato. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Rathbone as modified to have had the pressure within the claimed range, as it only involves adjusting a dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when adjusting the pressure across the valve (20) for the fluid to have dropped at least 50 mbar as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Rathbone does not teach partial evaporation of the first cooling fluid provided such that a first evaporation gas is formed during partial evaporation of the first cooling liquid during passage in the condenser which is fed into the gas line. Rathbone only refers to the stream formed from the condenser as a fluid.
Handley teaches that when a crude liquid oxygen stream is heated in an overhead condenser of an argon column, it is partially vaporized before passing to the low pressure column (paragraph 25).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Handley to have when heating the rich oxygen liquid in the condenser (18) of Rathbone as modified for the liquid to have been partially vaporized since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby partially vaporizing the stream would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of the stream in a condition for entering the lower pressure column that would be suitable for further separation as well as based upon the temperature needs for cooling the condenser through the heating. Thus the gas line would contain the evaporation gas and liquid as well as it passes to the valve.
Rathbone does not teach the condenser is a force-flow condenser evaporator.
Goloubev teaches that the evaporation chamber of a condenser/evaporator may take the form of a forced-flow evaporator (paragraph 6).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Goloubev for the condenser of Rathbone to have had an evaporation chamber (where the liquid passes through in the condenser of Rathbone) in the configuration of a forced-flow evaporator since it has been shown that a combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby utilizing a forced flow evaporator would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a suitable configuration for the condenser of Rathbone. This would result in the overall condenser-evaporator being considered an evaporator condenser.
Rathbone as modified does not teach means of a control device is used to adjust the throttle valve.
Handley teaches that to control valves controllers can be used (paragraph 28).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when adjusting the valve of Rathbone as modified for the adjustment to have been made as taught by Handley with a controller since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing a controller would be common knowledge in the art to provide a suitable way of controlling the valves automatically in response to desired conditions.
With respect to claim 3, Rathbone as modified teaches in which the first evaporation gas or a part thereof together with the first excess liquid or a part thereof are withdrawn from the first head gas condensation arrangement as a first two-phase flow without returning the first excess liquid or a part thereof to the one or more condenser evaporators (this is the configuration as modified where the oxygen liquid is partially evaporated and then passed fully from the condenser into the low pressure column via the throttle valve).
With respect to claim 4, Rathbone as modified teaches in which the first two-phase flow is conducted between the first head gas condensation arrangement and the low-pressure column through the first throttle valve (his is the configuration as modified where the oxygen liquid is partially evaporated and then passed fully from the condenser into the low-pressure column via the throttle valve).
With respect to claim 5, Rathbone as modified teaches the throttle valve has a first operating mode and a second operating mode (the throttle valve is adjusted by a control device and as such has multiple modes of operation which would include a first and second), in the second operating mode first throttle vale is set so that a pressure drop across the throttle vale of at least 50 mbar is generated (this is the configuration that is shown to be obvious in claim 1).
Rathbone as modified does not teach in a first operating mode the throttle valve is fully open.
Nakazato teaches that flow rate and pressure control valves (10, 11) upstream and downstream of a condenser of an argon column between an intermediate pressure column (2) and a lower pressure column (1) where the valves are adjusted to maintain the temperature difference to a desired level to prevent argon from solidifying which is a concern and the fluid is depressurized across the valves (pages 7-8). The amount of pressure change adjusted by a valve is caused by how open or closed a valve is for an adjustable valve. As such how open or closed the valve is a result effective variable based on the desired pressure which is chosen to achieve a specific heat transfer configuration. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Rathbone as modified as it only involves adjusting a dimension (the opening amount of the valve, which is what is changed to achieve the pressure change) which is disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when adjusting the pressure across the valve to have operated the valve so that its opening degree is fully open matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 6, Rathbone as modified does not teach in which the throttle valve is adjusted such that the temperature of the first cooling fluid is preferably at least 0.1 K above the triple point temperature of argon upon entering the first head gas condensation arrangement. It should be noted that adjustment of the throttle valve as already claimed adjust the temperature.
Nakazato teaches that flow and pressure control valves are used to keep a specific temperature difference between the evaporation side and the condensation side of a condenser to as part of a concern that argon will solidify in the condenser bed which can happen if the temperature of the refrigerant is too low (page 8).
As such the temperature of the first cooling fluid is a result effective variable, chosen to prevent solidification of the argon in the condenser. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Rathbone as modified as it involves only adjust a dimension disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when adjusting the throttle valve of Rathbone to have done so such that the temperature of the first cooling fluid is preferably at least 0.1 K above the triple point temperature of argon upon entering the first head gas condensation arrangement since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 10, Rathbone as modified teahces in which the first evaporation gas or the part thereof, together with the first excess liquid or the part thereof, are fed into the low-pressure column together as a two-phase flow via the gas line and the first throttle valve (the combined stream from 18 is fed into the column via the valve).
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathbone/Nakazato/Golubev/Handley and further in view of Tuo (US PG Pub 20230251033), hereinafter referred to as Tuo.
With respect to claim 2, Rathbone does not teach the liquid level on the evaporation side of the head gas condensation arrangement is regulated by a second throttle valve by which the first cooling liquid upstream of the head gas condensation arrangement can be throttled. Rathbone as modified does teach the presence of said valve as modified upstream of the condenser which can provide throttling but does not teach the evaporation side of the condenser has a liquid level.
Tuo (Figure 2) teaches that a once-through condense-reboiler (575) can be placed inside a phase separator (580) (paragraph 34) which can be seen to have a liquid level.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Tuo configured the forced flow evaporator of Rathbone as modified to have been inside a phase separator which has a liquid level and after the oxygen rich liquid passes through the evaporation portion for it to be separated in the outer phase separator since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the reboiler in this configuration would allow additional refrigeration to be provided by the liquid that is separated from the partially evaporated fluid (which is what is shown in Tuo) which could reduce the amount of flow needed or size of the head gas condensation arrangement. As the throttle valve is upstream of the configuration as claimed it is regulating the liquid level inside the phase separator which is the “evaporation side” of the configuration.
With respect to claim 13, Rathbone as modified does not teach the head gas condensation arrangement has a heat exchanger block and said heat exchanger block is arranged in the interior of the phase separator, in which the first evaporation gas and the first excess liquid are separated from each other.
Tuo (Figure 2) teaches that a once-through condense-reboiler (575) can be placed inside a phase separator (580) (paragraph 34) which can be seen to have a liquid level.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Tuo configured the forced flow evaporator of Rathbone as modified to have been inside a phase separator which has a liquid level and after the oxygen rich liquid passes through the evaporation portion for it to be separated in the outer phase separator since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the reboiler in this configuration would allow additional refrigeration to be provided by the liquid that is separated from the partially evaporated fluid (which is what is shown in Tuo) which could reduce the amount of flow needed or size of the head gas condensation arrangement. As the throttle valve is upstream of the configuration as claimed it is regulating the liquid level inside the phase separator which is the “evaporation side” of the configuration. The condenser (18) that is within the phase separator in the modification as taught by Tuo is a heat exchanger block as best understood in view of applicant’s specification as it is the same configuration.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathbone/Nakazato/Goloubev/Handley and further in view of Howard (US PG Pub 20150007607), hereinafter referred to as Howard and Pompl (US PG Pub 20020178747), hereinafter referred to as Pompl.
With respect to claim 7, Rathbone as modified teaches does not teach when the first liquid pressure flow is expanded a first flash gas is formed in addition to the first low-pressure liquid.
Howard teaches that when expanding a crude oxygen stream it can be flashed so that nitrogen can be removed and the liquid sent to be used for cooling in the argon column from the stream so that less nitrogen is in the top of the lower pressure column which increases the liquid to vapor ratio within the lower pressure column which can help with argon recovery from the lower pressure column (paragraphs 32-34).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have when expanding the first liquid pressure flow for flash gas to be formed in the expansion (the valve as modified upstream of 18) and only the liquid form expansion is used for cooling in the condenser (18) before being sent after being heated to the lower pressure column in Rathbone as modified based on the teaching of Howard in the expansion whereby flashing the stream during expansion and removing some of the nitrogen would allow for increased argon recovery.
Rathbone as modified does not teach using at least a part of the oxygen-enriched liquid from the pressure column a second liquid pressure flow is formed, which is expanded to produce a second liquid
the pure argon column is operated using a second head gas condensation arrangement in which head gas of the pure argon column is subjected to condensation with partial evaporation of a second cooling fluid provided using the second liquid or a part thereof; and in which a second evaporation gas is withdrawn from the second head gas condensation arrangement and mixed with the first evaporation gas and introduced into the low-pressure column, and a second excess liquid is withdrawn from the second head gas condensation arrangement and used to form the first cooling liquid for the first head gas condensation arrangement.
Howard (Figure 1) teaches an additional argon column (argon refining column 100, paragraph 32, which can be considered a pure argon column as it is further purifying crude argon) using at least a part of the oxygen-enriched liquid from the pressure column a second liquid pressure flow is formed, which is expanded to produce a second liquid (the initial oxygen stream from the bottom of the low pressure column is expanded in a valve 118 and used to provide cooling to the condenser of the argon refining column overhead 120, paragraph 40) in which head gas of the pure argon column is subjected to condensation with partial evaporation of a second cooling fluid provided using the second liquid or a part thereof (the expanded stream from 118 is partially vaporized in 120 against the condensing of 122, paragraph 40); and in which a second evaporation gas is withdrawn from the second head gas condensation arrangement and mixed with the first evaporation gas and introduced into the low-pressure column (the combined stream is removed as stream 134 from the condenser 120 and the vapor portion is mixed with the gas stream (160) from the overhead of the crude column (paragraph 42), and a second excess liquid is withdrawn from the second head gas condensation arrangement and used to form the first cooling liquid for the first head gas condensation arrangement (the liquid from the condenser 120 is provided via an expansion vale (144) into the condenser of the crude argon column (paragraph 41).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided an additional argon column in Rathbone as modified where before passing liquid to the condenser of the crude argon column for the oxygen liquid to be expanded with a valve and then passed into a condenser of an argon refining column where it condenses the overhead of the argon refining column to produce a partially vaporized stream which is separated with the vapor portion being mixed with the stream (22) entering the lower pressure column and a liquid portion which is expanded (which would be using the throttle valve as modified) and passed into the condenser of the crude argon column as the first liquid pressure flow that is expanded since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the argon refining column as well as the additional condenser with the flow arrangement as above would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a higher purity argon stream to be produced by the column system.
Rathbone as modified does not teach the argon refining column is a pure argon column.
Pompl teaches that the column a crude argon stream can be further purified by sending it to a pure argon column (paragraph 28).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Pompl for the argon refining column of Rathbone as modified to have been a pure argon column since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby configuring the argon refining column as a pure argon column would provide the predictable result that would be common knowledge in the art of being able to produce a high purity argon or pure product stream.
Rathbone as modified does not teach the expansion of the second liquid pressure flow result in expansion results in a second low-pressure liquid which is used as the second cooling fluid.
Nakazato teaches that flow rate and pressure control valves (10, 11) upstream and downstream of a condenser of an argon column between an intermediate pressure column (2) and a lower pressure column (1) where the valves are adjusted to maintain the temperature difference to a desired level to prevent argon from solidifying which is a concern and the fluid is depressurized across the valves (pages 7-8).
As such, the specific pressure the stream is expanded to is a result effective variable based on the conditions needed to provide the desired heat exchange. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Rathbone as modified to have had the pressure within the claimed range, as it only involves adjusting a dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the rt at the time the invention was filed to have when expanding the second fluid for the fluid to have dropped to a low pressure and thus be a low pressure liquid as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Rathbone as modified does not teach the expansion of the second liquid pressure flow results in a second flash gas with the second low-pressure liquid as remains.
Howard teaches that when expanding a crude oxygen stream it can be flashed so that nitrogen can be removed and the liquid sent to be used for cooling in the argon column from the stream so that less nitrogen is in the top of the lower pressure column which increases the liquid to vapor ratio within the lower pressure column which can help with argon recovery from the lower pressure column (paragraphs 32-34). Howard teaches that multiple stages of flash and separation can be provided (paragraph 33)
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have when expanding the first liquid pressure flow for flash gas to be formed in the expansion (the additional valve as modified upstream of pure argon column overhead) and only the liquid from expansion is used for cooling in the condenser (overhead condenser of the pure argon column) before being sent after being heated ultimately to the lower pressure column (via the other flash expansion, separation and heating in 18) in Rathbone as modified based on the teaching of Howard in the expansion whereby flashing the stream during expansion and removing some of the nitrogen would allow for increased argon recovery.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathbone/Nakazato/Goloubev/Handley/Howard/Pompl/Bonaquist and further in view of and further in view of Rohde (US Patent No. 5084081) and further in view of Rohde and Bonaquist (US Patent No. 5406800), hereinafter referred to as Bonaquist.
With respect to claim 8, Rathbone as modified does not teach in which the liquid level in the bottom of the pressure column is measured, and the amount of first cooling fluid introduced into the second head gas condensation arrangement is adjusted as a function of the measured value.
Rohde teaches that it is advantageous to measure units for liquid level in the bottom off a high-pressure column (Column 4, lines 19-21) and the level is controlled by a control valve (132) (Column 6, lines 15-16).
Therefore it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Rohde to have in Rathbone as modified provided a measurement of liquid level in the bottom of the high-pressure column and adjust the flow out of the column based on this measurement since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it would be common knowledge in the art that controlling liquid level would provide for desired operational conditions for the column. The flow out directly affects the flow into the condenser of the pure argon column as modified and thus the modification provided by the teaching of Rohde would result in the claimed limitation.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathbone/Nakazato/Goloubev/Handley/Howard/Pompl and further in view of and further in view of Suenaga et al. (JP 2009204193), hereinafter referred to as Suenaga and further in view of Bonaquist.
With respect to claim 9, Rathbone as modified does not teach in which the liquid level in the evaporation chamber of the second head gas condensation arrangement is measured controlled by adjusting the feed quantity to the first condenser arrangement.
Suenaga (Figure 5) teaches that an argon column (31) can have a top evaporator and condenser (27, 28 paragraph 36) where the liquid level can be detected by a liquid level gage and the flow rate into the evaporator can be controlled by a liquid level control valve based on the detected results (paragraph 22).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have based on the teaching of Suenaga for the condenser of the pure argon column of Rathbone to have a liquid level and for that liquid level to be detected (measured) and to have a valve which feeds the column control the liquid level since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing this configuration would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of controlling the amount of cooling provided to ensure a desired condensing of the overhead of the column.
Rathbone as modified does teach that the liquid level is kept constant.
Bonaquist teaches maintaining the liquid in the top condenser at a desired level by a condenser level controller (Column 5, lines 57-60).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Bonaquist to when controlling the liquid level in the overhead condenser of the pure argon column of Rathbone as modified to have done so by maintaining the liquid level at a desired level (which can be considered keeping it constant) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing this configuration would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of ensuring the desired amount of cooling is available in the overhead column and the condenser does not dry out on the evaporation side.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathbone/Nakazato/Goloubev/Handley and further in view of Pompl.
With respect to claim 11, Rathbone as modified teaches wherein the evaporation gas is conducted into the low-pressure column via the gas line through the throttle valve (this is the configuration as shown in Figure 1 with the valve 20).
Rathbone does not teach in which the first two-phase flow between the head gas condensation arrangement and the low-pressure column is conducted into a phase separator in which the first evaporation gas and the first excess liquid are separated from each other, wherein the separated evaporation gas is conducted between the phase separator and the low-pressure column via the gas line through the throttle valve.
Pompl teaches that when a partially evaporated stream is fed from top condenser (37) into a low-pressure column it can first be separated into liquid and vapor phases (81/84) by a phase separator (80) and fed separately into the column (paragraph 25).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Pompl provided a phase separator which receives the stream of partially evaporated crude oxygen from the condenser (18) of Rathbone as modified, separates it into liquid and vapor phases and passes them respectively into the column in the same way as the combined stream (which modification would result in a throttle valve on each stream as the pressure change would still be required) since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereas they are both methods of providing the fluid from the condenser to the column it would be prima facie obvious to have used the separator to provide the streams separately as opposed to together, and further doing so would be common knowledge in the art that providing the pre-separation of the streams would allow them to be separately acted upon or utilized by the internal configuration of the column.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathbone/Nakazato/Goloubev/Handley/Howard and further in view of Nagamura et al. (US Patent No. 5345773), hereinafter referred to as Nagamura and Corduan et al. (EP1191291), hereinafter referred to as Corduan.
With respect to claim 12, Rathbone as modified does not teach in which the liquid level in the phase separator is measured.
Nagamura teaches that phase separator which feeds a column has a level sensor which continuously monitors the liquid level in the separate to control the flow to the column (Column 3, line 66 – Column 4, line 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Nagamura monitored (measured) the liquid level of the phase separator of Rathbone as modified since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby monitoring the liquid level would be common knowledge in the art to ensure proper production would be maintained (Nagamura teaches monitoring liquid level is part of ensuring a specific production) as part of overall determination of operation of the system.
Rathbone as modified does not teach the amount of first excess liquid introduced into the low-pressure column, kept constant.
Corduan teaches that even with fluctuations in the amount of feed fluid, a constant amount of liquid is taken from the sump of the column operating at high pressure to ensure that the liquid feed into the column remains constant and undisturbed with flow control (paragraph 11).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Corduan maintained the liquid feed from the phase separator into the column of Rathbone constant since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby maintaining the liquid feed constant would allow for the internal operations of the lower pressure column with respect to liquid and vapor ratio constant even if there are feed air changes to the system (desired by Corduan, paragraphs 3 and 10).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathbone and further in view of Nakazato, Goloubev, Handley, and Howard.
With respect to claim 14, Rathbone teaches an air separation plant (Figure 1) with a rectification column arrangement having a pressure column (high pressure column 4, Column 4, line 44), a low-pressure column (lower pressure column 6, Column 4, lines 43-44), and a raw argon column (13), wherein the air separation plant (100, 200) is configured with direct or indirect use of a first proportion of an oxygen-enriched liquid from the pressure column (11), to form a first liquid pressure flow (stream 12 from 4 fed into 18, Column 4, lines 58-63)
to operate the raw argon column using a first head gas condensation arrangement and subject this head gas of the raw argon column to condensation with a first cooling fluid (condenser 18 is used to provide condensation to the overhead of the argon column using the fluid from 12, Column 4, lines 62-66), to feed a fluid into the lower pressure column (the fluid from 18 is fed into 6 via a line, Column 4, lines 66-68),
and the gas line contains a first throttle valve (expansion valve 20, Column 4, line 67).
Rathbone does not teach to and to expand said first liquid pressure flow with production of a first flash gas while a first low-pressure liquid remains where the first low-pressure liquid is used as the first cooling fluid, or the first throttle valve is designed to be adjusted in such a way that freezing of argon in the first head gas condensation arrangement is avoided, and in the process a pressure drop across the throttle valve of at least 50 mbar is at least temporarily generated.
Nakazato teaches that flow rate and pressure control valves (10, 11) upstream and downstream of a condenser of an argon column between an intermediate pressure column (2) and a lower pressure column (1) where the valves are adjusted to maintain the temperature difference to a desired level to prevent argon from solidifying which is a concern and the fluid is depressurized across the valves (pages 7-8).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have expanded the first liquid pressure flow in Rathbone upstream of the condenser (18) in a valve based on the teaching of Nakazato as part of pressure and flow control of the stream ensure that the proper temperature difference is maintained in the condenser to prevent solidification. Further, the specific pressure the stream is expanded to is a result effective variable based on the conditions needed to provide the desired heat exchange. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Rathbone as modified to have had the pressure within the claimed range, as it only involves adjusting a dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when adjusting the pressure across the valve (additional throttle valve) for the fluid to have dropped to a low pressure and thus be a low pressure liquid as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Further it would have been obvious to have adjust the valve (expansion valve 20) of Rathbone as modified to have adjusted the flow rate and pressure through the valve of Rathbone based on the teaching of Nakazato in order to maintain a specific temperature difference in the condenser in order to prevent solidification of the argon in the condenser bed which is a concern (page 8 of Nakazato). Further, the specific pressure the stream is expanded to and thus the pressure drop is a result effective variable based on the conditions needed to provide the desired heat exchange. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Rathbone as modified to have had the pressure within the claimed range, as it only involves adjusting a dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when adjusting the pressure across the valve (20) for the fluid to have dropped at least 50 mbar as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Rathbone as modified does not teach the expansion of the first liquid pressure flow result in flash gas as well as the first low-pressure liquid
Howard teaches that when expanding a crude oxygen stream it can be flashed so that nitrogen can be removed and the liquid sent to be used for cooling in the argon column from the stream so that less nitrogen is in the top of the lower pressure column which increases the liquid to vapor ratio within the lower pressure column which can help with argon recovery from the lower pressure column (paragraphs 32-34).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have when expanding the first liquid pressure flow for flash gas to be formed in the expansion (the valve as modified upstream of 18) and only the liquid form expansion is used for cooling in the condenser (18) before being sent after being heated to the lower pressure column in Rathbone as modified based on the teaching of Howard in the expansion whereby flashing the stream during expansion and removing some of the nitrogen would allow for increased argon recovery.
Rathbone does not teach the evaporation of the first cooling fluid provided such that a first evaporation gas is formed during partial evaporation of the first cooling liquid which is fed into the gas line. Rathbone only refers to the stream as a fluid.
Handley teaches that when a crude liquid oxygen stream is heated in an overhead condenser of an argon column, it is partially vaporized before passing to the low-pressure column (paragraph 25).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Handley to have when heating the rich oxygen liquid in the condenser (18) of Rathbone as modified for the liquid to have been partially vaporized since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby partially vaporizing the stream would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of the stream in a condition for entering the lower pressure column that would be suitable be for further separation. Thus the gas line would contain the evaporation gas and liquid as well as it passes to the valve.
Rathbone does not teach the condenser is a force-flow condenser evaporator.
Goloubev teaches that the evaporation chamber of a condenser/evaporator may take the form of a forced-flow evaporator (paragraph 6).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Goloubev for the condenser of Rathbone to have had an evaporation chamber (where the liquid passes through in the condenser of Rathbone) in the configuration of a forced-flow evaporator since it has been shown that a combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby utilizing a forced flow evaporator would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a suitable configuration for the condenser of Rathbone. This would result in the overall condenser-evaporator being considered an evaporator condenser.
Rathbone as modified does not teach means of a control device is used to adjust the throttle valve.
Handley teaches that to control valves controllers can be used (paragraph 28).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when adjusting the valve of Rathbone as modified for the adjustment to have been made as taught by Handley with a controller since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing a controller would be common knowledge in the art to provide a suitable way of controlling the valves automatically in response to desired conditions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Seiver et al. (US PG Pub 20030131625).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN M KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
